LIBELLING Ex-M.P.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, Issue 18084, 28 June 1924, Page 10

LIBELLING Ex-M.P.

;< ‘SOUTHLAND NEWS'! CAST IN DAMAGES: By Telegraph—Press Association. ■ INVERCARGILL, June 26. An. action.for libel was beard in the Invercargill Magistrate’s Court, when Jolm Ronald . Hamilton proceeded against the “Southland News” Com pany, claiming £75 in respect of a letter ‘published in the “News” some months ago. Fox' the plaintiff Mr Russell said that a letter appeared on December 7 last in the; “Southland News,” which appeared on the main page in prominent tvpe, as follows:—‘.‘lt is rather amusing to read the advertisement of the Producers’ Committees’ scheme, wherein they recommend Mr J. R. Hamilton as being the ‘safest soundest and mo3t experienced man’ to . administer tho Daily Control Act.- We' remember how ‘safe and sound’ he was when a member of the County Council, when he overdrew ~ his account by • £I6OO, and how spgood deal of money was wasted on iobbing-.and favouritism. Wo lejneihber the'castigation lie got from a Judge of the Supreme Court for his bumptious arrogance and ignorance, how lie had to climb down and apologise, end come to heel like a whipped Mir while representing Awania in Parliament. We don’t forget these things and wo don’t want again to blush tot shame at the behaviour of a representative on the. control board. Xct us leave Mr Hamilton, where he rightJv belongs, m the': Lip of oblivion, Und vote for a. gentleman whose record we know for at least twenty years to be

pure and clean and progressive, and commanding the confidence and respect of the public and the many interests for which he lias been acting-secretary for all those years.'’ The defence stated that the letter was published in good faith. Tha paper had been supporting the dairy .farmers’ candidature, in which Mi 'Hamilton was included, as opposed to the promoters’ candidature, and they thus had a moral duty to perform to both sides and, through the correspondence columns, to give supporters of the opposite forces a chance to ex press their views, thus being fair to the public. The magistrate characterised the letter as a solid libel, and said it showed hatred, malice and spite. The “News” should have published a prominent apology. Judgment was given for the full amount with costs.